The only way to change government style is by vote, or bloody revolution.

Our government style is laid out in the Constitution. You've all met the nice men and women who have sworn and oath to protect the Constitution. You also likely know people who have given their lives defending that oath.

Personally... I'd rather not see what we saw in Libya, where the military was used against the populace. I do however thing that there needs to be a LARGE and SWEEPING concerted effort by the PEOPLE right or left, to tell the people that are representing them that "SHIT ISN'T WORKING, MAKE IT WORK, OR WE WILL REPLACE YOU, QUICKLY."

Before that happens... there needs to be interest, and education of the voting populace... but man... can't talk now, American Gladiators is on.

It appears to be an attempt to settle the quandary regarding Al Qaeda detainees. Should they be treated as civilian criminal suspects, and either charged and tried or released? Or should they be treated as enemy combatants (which normally requires military uniforms). The point is that these detainees function as if they are members of a military and if released will continue to present a threat as terrorists. So I support categorizing them as military POWs.

But it's a fucking slippery slope. Would the US gov't treat its citizens in this way?

I'm also talking about removing Democracy from the U.S. These people were luminaries, and able to effect changes in our world, but it was a representative democracy in the southeast U.S. in the 50s and 60s, and it still is.

Well it is time again to cast your vote and participate in that grand orgy of freedom that climaxes with the perpetuation of democracy and the American way. woohoo.

So before you believe their lies, will you at least listen to ours?

democracy as practiced in the post-industrial world is increasingly under threat; in February of this year, increasing attacks not just on the policies of leaders, but the on very legitimacy of leaders. In this world, it's not enough to say that your opponent is wrong, you have to say that your opponent simply has no right to lead. As democracy depends on the losers stepping aside gracefully as much as the winners ruling fairly, attacks on the legitimacy of opponents were implicit attacks on democracy itself.

At the conservative website "American Thinker," Matthew Vadum argued on September 1 that "registering the poor to vote is Un-American:"

Registering them to vote is like handing out burglary tools to criminals. It is profoundly antisocial and un-American to empower the nonproductive segments of the population to destroy the country -- which is precisely why Barack Obama zealously supports registering welfare recipients to vote.

On September 4, libertarian news site "The Daily Bell" published an interview with influential investment adviser Doug Casey. The interview provides a wide-ranging discussion of coming social and economic apocalypse (and how you can invest now!), and in the midst of it we get the following:

Doug Casey: No. Democracy is just mob rule, dressed up in a coat and tie. It's too bad people conflate democracy, which is mob rule, with liberty and freedom. Democracy in most of the world is everybody voting for the person that promises him or her the most stolen goods from other people. Democracy is a political system, and all political systems rest on institutionalized coercion. I don't care whether it's a king, a president, a congress, or a mob of chimpanzees that tell me I have to pay 50% of my income over to them so they can fund wars, welfare programs, the police state, oligarchic corporations, or whatever. That's what democracy is today.

Rich Miller and Simon Kennedy at Bloomberg.com (September 5, ) opened a piece entitled "Economies in Peril Proving Voters Aren't Careful About What Is Wished For" with the line "The world economy is paying a price for democracy."

If the first thing that you notice is that these are all conservative outlets, you're missing the bigger picture. All three are offering views of the institutional mainstream: Bloomberg is about as conventional-wisdom as you get; American Thinker is a regular player in the Conservative web/Republican Party network; and while the Daily Bell appears to be an outlier, Doug Casey himself is said to be quite influential. For any one of them to be adopting this position would be a (weak signal) blip; for all three to take this position is, a sign of something much larger, especially when coupled with existing attacks on the legitimacy of leadership (and the legitimacy of government itself). Getting this kind of argument from the institutional mainstream tells me that it's not going away any time soon, and is likely to become more pervasive.

Winston Churchill famously said "democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." There is no reason to pretend that democracy, especially as structured today (19th century voting model immersed in a 21st century media environment), is even close to perfect. But the hallmark of a free society is transparency, and the ultimate expression of transparency is to have a voice in shaping society's future.

Those who attack democracy may claim to do so for a variety of reasons, but make no mistake: attacks on democracy arise when voters express opinions that don't agree with the attackers'.

Sometimes, attacks come from those who feel that the world isn't paying attention to their wisdom, that their voices aren't being heard (such as the numerous times I've heard climate activists lament the short-sightedness of the average voter). In this case, however, the attacks are coming from those who already have a major stake in the system, whose voices already receive (arguably disproportionate levels of) attention.

as Alfred North Whitehead said; "It's the business of the future to be dangerous, and you don't get much more dangerous than attacks on the legitimacy of democracy." By no means is it guaranteed that this movement will win; in fact, it's more likely than not that it will prove unable to get rid of democracy, although likely to weaken it considerably, at least for a time. But that they are willing to attack the fundamental philosophy of the modern state in such blunt language, and have the resources to do more than just write noisy blog posts, suggests that this fight will be neither brief nor insubstantial.

The question, then, is (as always) what is to be done? More transparency, but that isn't enough. We also need to see a shift in the larger culture away from spectacle and attention-grabbing stimulation, and towards illumination and empathy-building consideration.

It's the business of the future to be dangerous; apparently, it's the business of the futurist to be depressed.

.......................................................................................Oh yeah, this year I was totally twerping out at the fence. ~Lonesombri

Box Burner wrote:“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.” - Mahatma Gandhi, in Gandhi, An Autobiography, p. 446

If I am not wrong, this excerpt was for gaining Indian recruits to fight for Britain during World War I. To expand on the quote -

I used to issue leaflets asking people to enlist as recruits. One of the arguments I had used was distasteful to the Commissioner: 'Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn.' The Commissioner referred to this and said that he appreciated my presence in the conference in spite of the differences between us. And I had to justify my standpoint as courteously as I could.

I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence... I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor.

This had to do with protecting communes from reiving bandits rather than fomenting bloody revolution. His point (I think) was that his nonviolence came from courage, not cowardice.

knowmad wrote:democracy as practiced in the post-industrial world is increasingly under threat; in February of this year, increasing attacks not just on the policies of leaders, but the on very legitimacy of leaders. In this world, it's not enough to say that your opponent is wrong, you have to say that your opponent simply has no right to lead. As democracy depends on the losers stepping aside gracefully as much as the winners ruling fairly, attacks on the legitimacy of opponents were implicit attacks on democracy itself.

....

That was beautifully written.

Personally I always get nervous when the Republican start saying the same things. That means they've had a meeting and decided they are going to push for something specific, and they've had their marketing experts give them the language to use and the phrases to repeat as often as they can in the media. I dream of a day that the left is smart about their media game plan.

You've also caught me on one of my own bad habits, blaming the ignorant Other for their votes as if they are too stupid to vote. I suppose I shouldn't see their vote as stemming from stupidity, but as the malicious vote it was meant to be.

Should the Secretary of the Interior have permanent authority to authorize states to issue electronic duck stamps? If so, why?

How much time do you plan on researching and understanding this issue before you cast your vote?

No!

112th CONGRESS1st SessionH. R. 3117To grant the Secretary of the Interior permanent authority to authorize States to issue electronic duck stamps, and for other purposes.

the answer is in the beginning; permanent authority, and for other purposes.

permanent authority should not be taken from the states.

And most importantly other purposes is not defined. No power of any kind should be given to government which is not defined in minute detail and severely limited. "Other Purposes" does not meet that criteria. What other purposes means is not defined in the document and so could be used for anything.